Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s reply filed on 3/24/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 1-9 have been withdrawn. Claim 10 has been amended. Claims 10 and 11 are under consideration.
Objections Withdrawn
The objection to the Specification is withdrawn in view of the amended abstract.
Rejections Withdrawn
The rejection of Claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of the amended claim(s).
The rejection of Claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manneck et al. (US 2017/0165161) is withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Rejections Maintained and New Grounds of Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 2020/0315936; cited in IDS) in view of Rughani et al. (US 2018/0280269).
Wagner teaches a method for strengthening and repairing keratin fibres (e.g. abstract).
Wagner exemplify a composition comprising:
3 wt% maleic acid and 3 wt% itaconic acid (i.e. bifunctional α,β-unsaturated compound);
a) 10 wt% propylene glycol (i.e. a polyol); and
water q.s. 100% (e.g. paragraph 0112).
Wagner teaches that the compositions applied by itself or mixed with commercially available hair coloring or hair bleaching formulations improves the quality of the hair, reduces hair breakage, reduces hair damage, improves hair feel, reduces hair roughness, improves luster and hair shine, eases hair styling and improves moisture resistance of the hair (e.g. paragraph 0117).
Wagner further teaches the inclusion of an organic acid including glycine, methionine, and l-arginine ( e.g. paragraph 0062), but does not teach the concentration thereof. This is made up for by the teachings of Rughani et al.
Rughani et al. teach compositions and hair treatment methods which provide properties such as smoothness, gloss, improved combability, and improved strength and elasticity, comprising at least one amino acid (e.g. abstract; Claim 1). Rughani et al. teach that the amino acid is present at 0.5-50 wt% (e.g. paragraph 0104). Rughani et al. teach that the hair-treatment compositions may be applied to hair that has been artificially dyed, pigmented, or chemically permed or straightened, or hair that has not been artificially dyed, pigmented, or chemically permed or straightened (e.g. paragraph 0030). Rughani et al. teach that hair treated with an amino-acid containing composition (taurine) and citric acid, or taurine alone, vs treatment without, had stronger fiber feel, were the most disciplined, the most supple, had more closed ends, was the most compact, showed the most curl definition, were softest, and the smoothest than hair treated with a placebo (e.g. paragraph 0416).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the amino acid of Rughani et al. in the composition of Wagner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have predicted success as both of the compositions are useful as hair treatments to be used before, during, or after a hair coloring or bleaching method, and one of ordinary skill would have been motivated in order to provide the benefits of stronger fiber feel, more supple, more closed ends, more compact, most curl definition, softness, and smoothness, as taught by Rughani et al. (e.g. paragraph 0416). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the compositions of Wagner and Rughani et al. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding the concentration of amino acid, Rughani et al. teach that the amino acid is present at 0.5-50 wt%, which overlaps the claimed range (e.g. paragraph 0104). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE PLOURDE BABSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3055. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-4:30; F 8-12:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Blanchard can be reached on 571-272-0827. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICOLE P BABSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights